Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41
  1.    #1  
    As many of you know, I'm no fan of Bush. But he/his advisors put together a great speech tonight. Bush used his abilities and didn't try to overextend himself, and he touched on all the right stuff. I unreservedly support nearly everything he put forth (although that FBI extension is a little touchy).

    It was, without a doubt, his single greatest speech. And perhaps the best speech I've seen live.
    Last edited by Dieter Bohn; 09/21/2001 at 08:38 AM.
  2. #2  
    It was well done. But I will not surrender freedoms.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  3. #3  
    Who asked you to do so?

    Otherwise, I agree with the analysis. I really liked the "shallow grave" of lies line.

    Although given the way destructive ideologies keep propping up in human history like some night of the living dead knockoff, maybe we should try cremation instead.
  4. #4  
    I don't think I've said so many "Whoa"'s in my life!!!!! I personally think Bush is the perfect person to have as president during these tough times.
    You know it's bad when your Calculus Professor uses the word "Unpossible"

    "It's a long way from my thoughts to what I'll say, It's a long, long way from paradise to where I am today." -Switchfoot, Home
  5. #5  
    Josh right one. I will not give up my privacy. My free speech, all my other RIGHTS in the constitution for bush. I will not support a large war effert and we'll be damned if this turns into one. I am worried about what I hear peopel say. Bush's council, and his language, it's all so arrogant, so - violent. I'm very worried right now about the US's future..

    and Gore would of kicked *** here, europe liked gore more
    -Michael Ducker
    TreoCentral Staff
  6.    #6  
    Originally posted by ashmed
    I don't think I've said so many "Whoa"'s in my life!!!!! I personally think Bush is the perfect person to have as president during these tough times.
    Bush ain't. He's got regan-era war mongers as advisors, and since Bush himself is none-too-bright, they're the ones running the show. I was just happy that Bush has finally made a speech that didn't amount to "I'm ok. I'm ticked. I'm in charge, here."

    Gore, well, I don't know how much better he would have been. He was never all that eloquent, and Europe was much more in love with Clinton than with Gore.

    ..What do you suppose Nader woulda done?

    But Ashcroft wants the FBI to be able to phone tap "people," which I suppose may be ok. But they're looking for broader "tracking" rights too, essentially a "life tap." Yuck.
  7. #7  
    What concerns me about America is that we have people worried about having their phone tapped or being "tracked" in times like these. I am not in favor of these things generally, but "desperate times call for desperate measures". WAKE UP! Over 6000 individual people were killed last Tuesday. I am sure that anyone who has lost a friend, family member, or casual acquaintance wishes that we had the means to track these people two weeks ago. We knew they were here, but Clinton-era policy kept us from doing anything about it.

    I totally support any military action that is waged to root out and destroy terrorism and those that support or harbor it within their borders. I also think that anyone that anyone who does not support the US military and their actions has no right to display a flag in this forum or any other.
  8. #8  
    Originally posted by broache
    I also think that anyone that anyone who does not support the US military and their actions has no right to display a flag in this forum or any other.
    The military is not the same as the country. The military defends the country. the military does not represent the country. The flag does. Anyone who is a citizen of the United States has a right to display a flag ANYWHERE. I don't appreciate your statement.
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
  9. #9  
    Oh, almost forgot. Gore wouldn't know what to do yet. He'd still be conducting focus groups, town hall meetings, and public polls. After that was done, he'd make sure we had enough media coverage of the US troops in the area so the whole world could watch their movements on CNN. Bush will win this war before most of the world even knows we are there.
  10. #10  
    The military doesn't represent the country? Who does it represent? It is because of the military that we can fly that flag. Without the military, our flag would look quite different today. I guess I would like to revise my previous statement. Anyone that does not support our country, it's leadership, it's military, and what they represent, should have no desire to display the flag, since that is what it stands for.
  11.    #11  
    Originally posted by broache
    Oh, almost forgot. Gore wouldn't know what to do yet. He'd still be conducting focus groups, town hall meetings, and public polls. After that was done, he'd make sure we had enough media coverage of the US troops in the area so the whole world could watch their movements on CNN. Bush will win this war before most of the world even knows we are there.
    Think again, buckshot. This is going to be years. In fact, thinking of it as a "war" is wrong, because "wars" typically have an end. This "war" only has a beginning.

    As for the rest, well, whatever. You obviously have some strong views & I ain't going to change them. Just try not to be so belligerent when you're being ignorant.
  12. #12  
    Perhaps I'm the only one, but I found last night's speach a bit too scary for my liking. They've been upping the rhetoric every day since the bombing, with no sign of let up. They seem to be deliverately whipping the public into a fervour to garner support for this "war" (if you take a look at it, it's really a police action, but that's not a term they're likely to use, given it's connection with Vietnam in the American mind). Not only that, but they claim they want to use diplomatic means, yet they have flatly refused to talk to the Taliban further. Not exactly diplomatic, in my book.

    I'm also not impressed with the level of knowledge any of Bush's staff has shown in reguard to their enemy. They seem to think that a significant reprisal will scare the borderline people from joining bin Laden, when the information we have seems to indicate the opposite. If they actually go through with their threats (and it's going to be hard not to now), they won't be dealing with a terrorist network of a couple thousand. They'll be dealing with a terrorist network of a couple million, and that number will continue to grow with each reprisal.

    I'm not saying we shouldn't go after bin Laden. If the body of evidence points to him, then we should use every means at our disposal to get him as Bush said. However, we should exhaust all other means before using force.

    Finally, if I can get a little prophetic for a moment, this is not going to be a war of bombing and territory. It's going to be a war for hearts and minds, and the timeframe for this war will not be measured in years, but in generations.


    MHO, as always.
    It's gotta be weather balloons. It's always weather balloons. Big, fiery, exploding weather balloons.
    -- ComaVN (from Slashdot)
  13. #13  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    In fact, thinking of it as a "war" is wrong...
    This has been floating around in my head, too. I know people complained about calling the Korean and Vietnam Wars as police-actions. OK, well at least on re-runs of M*A*S*H* they complained about it. The government called those conflicts 'police actions' when they were, in effect, 'wars'.

    Now we have this, which the government is calling a war, when it is obvious to me that it is a police action. This is not a war in the aspect there is no line on a map, and all the people on this side of the line are the "good guys" and all the people on that side are "bad guys". We are not going to deploy a division of tanks to level City X and destroy the fuel/ammo dump. The B-52s will not carpet-bomb large areas of real estate. Instead, we will see a SEAL team sent to an area to capture 1 or 2 individuals. We will have a company of infantry deployed to search a city for bomb-making materials or a weapons cache. I expect very little of it to show up on TV (which is good because it protects national security, and it's bad because now the government has carte blanche to do what they want, and aren't answerable to us, the taxpayers/voters). Bush mentioned that in his speech, "many [missions] will be secret, even in success." I think many people want a smoldering pile of rubble to point to and say, "Ha! We got you! That'll teach you to screw with us!" and I don't think that is going to happen.

    Can I rant a little bit about the new FAA regulations? There is now (or will be) a no-fly zone around every large gathering such as concerts and sporting events. It is a 3 mile radius with a ceiling of 3,000 feet. Pilots who violate the no-fly zone will "be subject to stiff fines and possible revocation of their license." Oooooh, scary, I'll bet there were dozens of terrorists who packed it in after hearing that. The only thing that this new law prevents is the Goodyear blimp aerial shots. There are many private planes that can cruise at 200 knots and would cross that 3 mile zone in 47 seconds. A commercial airliner would do it in half the time. Unless you have an F-15 in the area or a Patriot battery in the parking lot, there isn't a lot that you can do except watch.

    In the miniscule hope that anyone in a public office reads this board: don't create stupid new laws to give us a false sense of security. Enforce the ones we have already.

    OK, I'm done ranting. Back to work...
    Soul Raven - "Små hjerne, stor glæde"
    Wherever you go, there you are.
  14. #14  
    A few random thoughts...

    1. It seems inevitable at this point that (1) the US will become embroiled in some sort of armed conflict very soon, and (2) the nature of this conflict does not admit any real scenario for peace.
    Moreover, the coming conflict is not confined to attacks on the military, but each one of us is potentially a target and a combatant.
    Why I should feel relieved after hearing our President essentially commit us to a war that can be won only by attrition is beyond me. And yet... I did feel relieved and encouraged at what he had to say. It's hard to explain. I don't consider myself impressionable, so I don't think it's just being caught in a foment of patriotism. Maybe this is what leadership really feels like on the receiving end -- it's been so long since I've experienced that from a President I may have forgotten. (For the record -- I voted Democratic in 1992 and 1996.)

    2. I think it was Ben Franklin who said, "Anyone who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither." A thought to keep in mind in times like these, where many Americans seem glad to give up fundamental liberties in order to feel safe flying on an airplane. My understanding of the proposed changes in the law is that many of them are simply updates of previous and similarly-scoped laws. But Americans need to watch out that they don't hand over to the government the very liberties that we are supposedly entering into a war to defend.
    BertBert
    Mark 12:28-31
  15. #15  
    Originally posted by Soul Raven
    This has been floating around in my head, too. I know people complained about calling the Korean and Vietnam Wars as police-actions. OK, well at least on re-runs of M*A*S*H* they complained about it. The government called those conflicts 'police actions' when they were, in effect, 'wars'. [...]
    Korea was a 'police action'. Vietnam was a 'conflict'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16. #16  
    And now, since Tom Ridge is getting this new position, I'm gonna get a new governer! And you thought the Lt. Governer didn't matter.
    -Bernie

    "One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'.
    -Dan Quayle
  17. #17  
    Is Bush's speach available online anywhere?

    Speaking of speaches, did anyone else catch Jon Stewart last night? He had a very touching monologue.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  18. Rob
    Rob is offline
    Rob's Avatar
    Posts
    531 Posts
    Global Posts
    533 Global Posts
    #18  
    Originally posted by broache
    I also think that anyone that anyone who does not support the US military and their actions has no right to display a flag in this forum or any other.
    Why stop there? Why not fine people who oppose any US military action? Maybe we should just lock them up for voicing their opposition -- then we could be just like the Taliban who arrest Christian aid workers.

    Get over yourself. Opposing a particular military action is not the same thing as opposing the military. And sincerely voicing an unpopular, dissenting opinion is more patriotic than mindlessly following the crowd. While I personally agree with the need to root out these global terrorist networks, I respect those who disagree. In fact, the dissenters remind us what we're fighting for in the first place: a free society based on open debate, free from the fear of censorship or reprisals for unpopular speech, as much as from the fear of terrorism.
  19. #19  
    Originally posted by homer
    Is Bush's speach available online anywhere?
    CNN has it.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  20. #20  
    Originally posted by broache
    anyone who does not support the US military and their actions
    The Commander in Chief of the military is the President of the United States. The head or leader of any group, unless they're a very poor leader, is implicitly responsible for all of the actions of the members of said group. The President of the United States is therefore responsible for the actions of the military.
    However, just because I may not support the President, does not mean I don't support the military, or vice-versa.
    When I noted that the military does not represent the country, I meant (and I know it's not clear, for which I apologize, I seem to be having trouble lately) that it is not a symbol of the country. Military personnel are representatives of the United States, is true.

    Without checking, I'm pretty sure the flag exists because of the Constitution.
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions